This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/

[address-policy-wg] 2014-07, was [Re: 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region")]

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Peter Koch pk at DENIC.DE
Fri Oct 24 08:16:12 CEST 2014

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:30:27PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:

> You may have misunderstood this one.  The change from "should" to "must"
> refers explicitly to the 6 points which need to be included in all end-user
> contracts, namely:

thanks, Nick, my mistake, indeed.  2014-08 seemed OK (except for the
misapplication of RFC 2119).  The comments were in response to 2014-07,
"Language Clarification in "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"

-Peter

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ address-policy-wg Archives ]